Lephys

The piglet is obviously an entity of pure time-space. That's where your stash is. NO one suspects the space piglet! o_O

Agreed. Just to make sure I'm clear, by all means, critique the spells. I just think the best reasons for changing them should be in how the spell relates to the game (or, in this instance, how the name relates to the player's interpretation... more minor, but still important.) "Mirror Image" definitely implies an entire 'nother image (as when you look in a mirror), so maybe that name should be reserved for a spell that actually creates one or more entirely separate images of the caster. *shrug*. Especially lore-wise, I think either blur, or something that makes your image seem to constantly shift around in a small area would be best for this type of spell. But, as for the actual mechanical function of the spell, what matters is contextual application. If a deteriorating 20 Deflection is just never useful in comparison to any other option at your disposal, then it should definitely be tuned.

I could be mistaken, but I'm fairly certain that's not what they did. That map looks like concept art, with locations placed on top of it and a UI added. Why would they start with a 3D super-zoomed-out map? The only things they've needed to build high-res 3D models for is the individual environment maps before they're "baked." Why spend all that time building a fancy-shmancy 3D world map when you're never, ever going to utilize the detail from that map, because you've just blurred it? When you could just paint it. Same as the portraits. Why take snapshots of 3D models, then blur them? No reason. That's why they've just painted the portraits.

Simply put, I play Bioware because it's fun to play. For what it's worth, I've paid more for PoE (well before it's even out) than I have for any Bioware game. So... maybe that puts things into perspective? I honestly just feel it's a little ridiculous for people to collectively act as though Bioware can't just be sub-par. Like if they're not amazing, they're horrendous. I'm currently having a ton of fun with DA:I, though. All without somehow wishing all games were exactly like DA:I, or thinking it has absolutely no flaws.

I'm not sure where the basis is for "it's too weak." Just because directly compared to a spell from another spell system, it's lesser? I don't think that follows. It might be too weak, but that wouldn't even mean "make it like some other spell from D&D that's way stronger." Maybe it just needs a little tweaking, or a name change or something. THEN, make sure there's a more potent spell in that functions a bit differently. That's what I'm getting at. People are a bit quick to judge these spells on the wrong criteria, like "there was a D&D spell called that, and it didn't work that way, so it's WRONG!" Also, 'nother spell idea: (Insert cool Wizard's name here)'s Befuddlement: Creates a dome at a specified location, within which one's perception of time's passage becomes skewed. Those affected have difficulty telling what's actually happening when, or how to time things, so they suffer a -5 penalty to all defenses, as well as suffering a 30% increase to recovery time.

New build tonight (allegedly). Hopefully the new changes will contribute to pacing issues in combat, 8P

Could you maybe cite something specific, and, you know... actually be productive in the thread? "Oh, man! Some of the words that people type on forums! HAH!" I'm just going to start responding with that, to everything, ever. Because then the world will be a better place.

Agreed. If its only purpose is money from selling, then I'd rather just find money, to be honest. I mean, it's one thing to find 5 common longswords in an entire area, and another to fell 73 bandits, and end up with 73 longswords. You've obviously got something equivalent or better on anyone you'd like to have an equipped longsword, at that point, so I just don't see the reason for even having all that pick-uppable. "For realism/immersion," sure. But immersion to what end? You could program in the ability to pick up and closely inspect rocks and blades of grass, but what's the point if it doesn't lead to some interesting use of that? I mean, honestly, the immersion argument leads to both the following, regarding this: 1) The equipment of anyone you kill should be there, available to take. 2) Your party of adventurer's would, realistically, never say "alright, guys, we really need to make sure we get all 73 of these longswords, because it's totally worth it" and pick them all up. So, in one line of reasoning, it's self-defeating. "Let's make sure you can pick up and sell 100 longswords in one bandit camp, in a world in which it isn't feasible to do that." *shrug* I agree, though, that it's kinda silly to kill 50 people, and only like 3 of them ever drop weapons or armor. Honestly, though, with the stronghold mechanic in place, I think you should just be able to send word to people to come pick the battlefield clean, so that they can actually be used as arms/supplies, or even melted down to make other things, rather than just being junk items for you and your adventuring party to always sell for 7cp a pop. There are definitely more interesting ways to do it than just "all physical objects that would exist in the world should be there and available to pick up and interact with."

Oh drat... I forgot to joice today! Oh well. I'll just have to save my re-joicing for later. 6_u

It really isn't a garbage artstyle. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it intrinsically garbage. It's just a more sketchy/gestury style. How much detail are you going to get in a map, anyway? "Oh look! That little market stall that takes up 4 pixels on the screen ACTUALLY has lots of super detailed cloth folds and stuff in it! WOOOOH!"

Oh, I do too. I'm just saying that in that era, if you had any kind of renown or reputation throughout the region, people would probably actually deal with you without waiting for you to produce, right then and there, hundreds of heavy coins.

Nope. If that were true, then that would be the only way to do any relationship (faction rep, respect, hatred, etc.), and no inter-character emotions would ever not-fail. Romantic affection is just a different kind of character response, of which there are already oodles of others in most RPGs. You keep making rather silly "put the square peg in the round hole" analogies, but you're really acting like I'm trying to put a friggin quantum block into a physical hole or something. It's just another regular block, and if we can make holes that the other blocks fit into, then the same can be done with romantic relations. That goes back to what I said before. The actual result should just be her reaction. If she likes that, she likes that. That is still something you should have to respond to, and not some "you picked the 'your character is totally romantically interested in her' options" situation. You did what you chose to do, for your own reasons, and she reacted according to her character. Then, you react to that. That's how it works. Just because someone did something and failed, doesn't mean that doing that thing leads to failure. I rode a bike and fell off, as a child. Doesn't mean that sitting on a bike and pedaling and balancing isn't the correct way to ride a bike, or that it's impossible to do it. "Such and such did that and it sucked," is not proof that "that" is what sucks, and not the attempt itself. Same as above. Just because DA:I fails doesn't mean there's no way to do it right. An RPG is about reacting to a world that reacts to you. Whether it be in combat, in dialogue, in faction/NPC relations, party relations, what have you. It's about interaction and choice significance. Nothing more, nothing less. It often involves adventuring, but is not in any way restricted to that. Prove that it isn't.

As opposed to items it would be dangerous to ignore?

, The thing about that is, when you've got a stronghold (as you can in PoE), and coffers and such, beyond the simple coinpurses of 6 individuals, eventually people will begin to trust that you're good to your word. So, even if you aren't carrying around 1,000 gold pieces, they'll trust that they can contact someone at your stronghold and procure the funds in a timely fashion. Not everyone, of course, but some people. This is also where a good reputation system comes in.

^ False. 1) You can simply not have character written who go "Oh, he was nice? I LOVE HIM, TOO!" 2) Same as 1. Heck, you can even be an ass to people and have characters who find that appealing. So, yeah, just write characters who are believable and make sense. 3) No it doesn't require that. Everything in the game has a level of restraint placed on your choices. You can't just burn a random orphanage down because you want to roleplay not-a-goody-two-shoes. You can't just say "Screw it, I actually want to destroy the universe and be the threat that some adventuring party has to come stop! MUAHAHAHAHAHA!". Because then it's not a narrative, it's a sandbox. In fact, that's one of the main things that separates a narrative-driven game from a sandbox/simulator. In general, it makes sense that you can only develop a full, romantic relationship with your companions, because they're with you throughout everything that happens in the entire narrative. That being said, it would be interesting to actually be able to have a relationship with someone who doesn't follow you around all the time, who just lives in some village somewhere and can't wait until you aren't on the run/off to fix some crazy thing that's befallen you/wrapped up in world-ending events. A valid point. I don't think it's easy. But it's conceptually easy to not do it completely wrong. A company like Bioware just kinda goes "Meh, I think more people are interested in just the dating-sim aspect of it and getting to make the choices, for funsies, than they are in the actual overall design and how it fits into the world/narrative." Basically, it gets treated like more character customization. "Who did you have YOUR Commander Shepard romance?! 8D!" It's not like it's a snap of the fingers and you've got the perfect romance aspect in an RPG. But, it starts with not founding it on the idea that picking a bed-buddy will just be a cherry on top of the banana-split that is the game, and to treat it like any other emotionally-charged/socially-interactive choice in the game should be treated. For one thing, it shouldn't even come down to a binary "OMG, I LIKEZ YOU! SAY YOU LIKEZ ME BACK, OR I CRY AND DISLIKE YOU!". IT should be more actual effort to understand a character who's romanceable, and if the personality you build for your character via player choices doesn't jive with what they're after, then they simply stop at friendship. They don't try to leap at you all of the sudden, then cry about it and hate you forever when you don't spontaneously catch them in your arms. I've provided oodles of examples before now. Something that would be great would be to have some temporary companion (who the player doesn't know to be temporary) who is very, very interested in the player's character. Then, it turns out she/he is actually some agent of a foe (or at least just someone with some agenda), and whether or not you allow them your personal trust determines a lot of significant results. It's really not that hard to produce a concept of how romantic interactions can be woven into an actual gameworld and narrative, instead of just included as a dipping sauce on the side.

I do like it when large cities are broken up into their own sub-map, for the purposes of world-mappery.

No no... I'm talking about the design of that dialogue response in the first place. It has nothing to do with the options being oriented in a radial fashion, or having icons to describe their tone. One should be able to say something and choose the tone himself. Or, rather, the tone shouldn't be definite until further choices are made. For example, you might say something that makes someone mad, because they thought you meant it a certain way. If they come back with "what the hell did you just say?!", you either respond with "You heard me..." or something of that nature, OR "I only meant that (clarification)." That being said, there should definitely be blatant options that are mean/flirty/what-have-you. But, it's a bit silly when you go from listening to a serious account of some companion's history, straight to "lolz, yer pretty!" It really should be much more context-sensitive, on the choice-giving, for the blatant choices. I'll hold my breath however I please. You're imagining proof. The solution already exists, it just doesn't get used. And no, it won't be a dating simulator. It'll be an RPG in which romance is much more subtle, AND actually matters in some shape or fashion. Being nice to people, or mean to people, or making this decision or that decision matters a great deal in many games and worlds and narratives. So, why is romance not a decision that affects anything? You're a silly person, Stun.

I'm sorry, but I still disagree. I realize that they'd be different if not for the D&D ruleset and specific spells and flavor and all that, but I simply can't bring myself to consider nothing else "similiar" without directly rivaling such specific aspects of an overall game. I think the infrastructure of the game is much more important. If you were to change, for example, the manner in which locations are explored, the manner in which stats affect things, the general manner in which combat takes place (say... making it a direct, button-makes-sword-swing action combat system), the general design of the world and the way in which your characters' choices affect it (and vice-versa), etc.... THAT would make it a dissimilar game. Not using a different ruleset, with a different way of going about magic. A fair point, in that I'd rather see something like Mirror Image (even if abstracted) function differently than anything else that provides you with a Deflection bonus. Or, rather, not necessarily that specific spell, but I'd like to see some spell function differently than that, but be a similar type of spell. For what it's worth, though, judging by the spell icon, and what lack of lore description we have for the spell, it appears as though that particular spell functions as it should. It seems to create extra images of you (as if the enemy is looking at one of those "I'm trying on clothes" triple-mirrors") in relation to your location, not separate images that jog around on and act on their own or anything. So, it makes sense that you only gain a Deflection bonus, as the enemy is still swinging at "you," he just can't tell exactly where he should swing, because his visual perception and distance/positioning judgement is compromised. But, when he swings at an image and misses you (or... even if he happens to hit you because he's swinging close enough to you), he then knows that his blade did not, in fact, come into contact with THAT targeted image. So, he can discount that one (even though he can still see it) and adjust for a better swing next time. Again, that being said, the flavor text matters little when the spell functionally just boosts Deflection, which 80 other things in the game already do. That doesn't mean "You can't have a spell that boosts deflection!" But, it would definitely be nice to see more spells that don't focus on adjusting the outcome of attack resolution, directly. I'll give Yonjuro's "what would you like to see?" question a go: (Insert Cool Wizard's name here)'s Pet Creates a 15-foot tentacle made of pure lightning that sprouts from the ground in the chosen location. It bears the level of sentience of a construct, able to target one foe at a time and make attacks, which consist of it slamming against the ground like a whip, striking anyone (within range) in-line with the target. It lacks the ability to physically knock anyone about, but deals shock damage and has a 30% chance to stun anyone stricken. It can be commanded to move, but it cannot attack whilst moving. Also, each movement consumes part of its manifested form, reducing its damage by 15% for the remainder of its duration.

Okay? I'm sure those people had never played real-time RPGs before, too, right? So they had absolutely no knowledge of how the game's mechanics functioned. *nod nod* Good point.

None except for those accursed tall, spindley demons that friggin tele-burrow under all your peeps. I wish everyone had some sort of action-roll ability with a cooldown, just so I could actually get the hell out of the way before they throw my Mage to the ground, . Of course, I probably just need to react better/faster. @Nipsen: ... Seriously, dude. Seriously... Let it go. The stats aren't how you want them to be. You'll live. I've seen you type almost more words than I do in a week, in countless posts about this in the last month or so, and yet what I haven't seen is any actual objective description of how everything is ruined "because stats!". All I've seen are your claims upon claims upon claims that it is so, as if it's just a given and needs no explanation. Well, I dare say it does.

I'm still very much focused on the "tradeoff" factor for engagement. I like the idea of "proper" disengagement costing you recovery time, etc. Because, I definitely agree that movement should be an option in combat. But, really, switching targets willy-nilly doesn't need to be. Even the current engagement system doesn't restrict movement in combat, though. It restricts movement once engaged. In other words, you can still take advantage of any abilities that allow you to control or restrict enemy movement, in order to move AROUND those enemies and engage with the enemies of your choosing. Not only that, but, if you take advantage of further engagement, you can prevent multiple enemies from ganging up on a person. So, yeah, also REALLY in favor of the severity of "improper" disengagement stemming from there being more than one enemy around. In fact, I think that may be the single biggest problem right now with engagement... the fact that, if you're just facing someone 1-on-1, it's highly punishing to disengage, unless you use one of your few abilities that lets you basically do so for free, which I'm not even sure should really happen, as, in a tactical environment, everything should have some kind of cost, or where's the choice?. I realize that there's a choice if it's a spell or some other form of limited ability set, in which one slot is taken up by that particular freebie ability. But, if not, there's no real choice. It's just a get-out-of-jail-free card, with "jail" being really, really common.

Even if it is the final map, it's probably not the final version of the final map. But, I really don't mind the painterly style.

Now that I've put about 15 hours into Inquisition, and seen the first many romance dialogue options, I think I've pinpointed the biggest (but not only) problem: The dialogue options have their motivation decided for you. The option might be "That's an admirable quality in a person," in response to someone expressing concern over some personality trait of theirs. And, while that could simply be said in a re-assuring way, it's *dun dunn DUNNNN*, a ROMANCE OPTION! Obviously you're saying that with 73 winks and nudges at the end of it. It's like they use the fortune cookie approach, silently adding "... in bed" to the end, to turn anything into a romance option. I dunno what's worse, though. That, or blatantly romantic/flirty out-of-nowhere responses. "So, this war's going well, isn't it?" ... "It sure is, beautiful!" ... O_O Haha. Annnnywho. Maybe one day we'll see it actually treated like a part of the world, instead of like "Okay, we're done with dialogue... NOW WE'LL ADD ROMANCE!"

Such exaggeration. I don't see Warriors swinging their sword and remotely causing people within a circle to suffer several horrible effects, and possibly some elemental damage, in a non-glowy fashion. I do understand what you mean about magic, but they're building this system specifically for a cRPG, not for a PnP adventure in which anything could happen. So, I don't really fault them for making magic more practical and less "I can summon another universe in which this world ISN'T threatened, then move us all into THAT universe to 'save the world'". There's nothing wrong with extremely mysterious/wondrous magic, but it's simply FAR more valuable in a strictly-narrative setting (book series' and the like) than in a video game setting in which the player is actively calling the shots at any given moment. Mainly because it takes a ludicrous amount of coding before you even start to approach that feeling of the dynamic usage of such magic. I'm all FOR a cRPG that captures the splendor of a PnP session. But, if it can't do that, then those 73 ultra-fancy spells that matter a whole bunch in a vibrant virtual world full of super-significant decisions just become "that annoying hard counter," or "that over-powered spell." The progression system and combat mechanics, etc, begin to compete with the spectacularity (totally a word) of the magic/lore.

A very valid point. I should think it's at least partially due to a lack of people clamouring specifically against art. The more people feel like something won't even be considered, the more reason they feel to push for its consideration. Obviously, you have your more extreme people on both sides. But, hey, if you strike up a topic about art, I don't know about anyone else, but I'll gladly evaluate its role in PoE. Really, though, we do know that interpersonal interaction between characters is in PoE, so Romance, being a subset of that, is probably more pertinent than art (as anything more than a topic -- as some form of active interaction or mechanic. I would actually love to see Knowledge - Art, or even an Art skill/Artist profession in the game).